Gwen Stribling Henderson, Raven A. Pitre and Christine S. Willie v. John Richard Shanks and Carbett Joseph Duhon, III, 449 S.W.3d 834

Gibbons updated her estate plan while diagnosed with brain cancer and executed a May Will prepared by Willie.
Two days after May Will, Gibbons married Shanks; four days later she underwent brain surgery.
On June 3, 2010, Gibbons executed a second Will prepared by Willie; later she realized gifts to Willie and life-insurance beneficiaries.
Gibbons executed a third Will on August 26, 2010, prepared by Duhon; core probate actions followed in Core Case 401,492.
Willie, Pitre, and Henderson filed an Ancillary Case in Harris County Probate Court seeking damages for tort claims against Shanks and Duhon.
The probate court granted summary judgment for Shanks and struck the plaintiffs’ petition in the Ancillary Case; two orders on same day were treated as a single final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave of court is required for ancillary claims	Henderson, Pitre, Willie contend no leave required for ancillary filings.	Shanks asserts Rule 63 or docket-control limits require leave or timing constraints.	Rule 63 does not apply; leave not required; trial court erred striking petition.
Whether the no-evidence summary judgment was premature	Plaintiffs argue discovery needed; premature to grant no-evidence SJ.	Shanks contends timely and proper given record evidence.	Court affirms traditional SJ, but addresses other issues; no-evidence SJ premature/inappropriate basis.
Whether there were genuine issues of material fact precluding traditional SJ	Plaintiffs argue fiduciary duties and interference facts create triable issues.	Shanks asserts no fiduciary duty owed and no interference facts established as a matter of law.	Court holds no fiduciary duty as a matter of law; traditional SJ proper as to Shanks for these claims; tortious-interference claims likewise not shown to be triable.
Whether the Ancillary Petition could be struck as to Duhon	Strike as to Duhon was improper; ancillary case distinct from core case.	Rule 63 or other grounds could justify striking potential counterclaims.	Strike improper; reverse to the extent petition was struck with prejudice; remand Duhon-related claims.

Port Distributing Corp. v. Fritz Chemical Co., 775 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (two related orders treated as single final judgment)
Bilnoski v. Pizza Inn, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (striking pleading limitations; not proper basis for striking litigant’s pleading)
Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2005) (formal fiduciary duties; informal duties require substantial relationship)
Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. 2006) (testator’s attorney generally owes no duty to non-client beneficiaries)